Loading...
2001 11-15 SpecialMeridian City Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2001 Comprehensive Plan Hearing The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Thursday November 15, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Dave Swartley, and Will Berg. Item 3. Continued from November 1, 2001 Special Meeting – Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian: Borup: The special meeting, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the Comp Plan. Oh, I was supposed to read the notice. You told me that last time. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Discussing Recommendations for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. One thing, it looks like we could come close to wrapping a lot of this stuff up. I did get a phone call yesterday from Tom Kuntz, the Parks and Rec DiRector. They would like to have us include the Park’s Comp Plan as part of --. Right. Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess we wont have a problem with that Utility Sub if we want to do that (inaudible). Borup: I told him it was a little late. I mean that we’re ready to wrap it up. Nary: It sounds a lot like a frontage road to me. Borup: Mr. Berg, was today the deadline to notice it anyway? No. Tuesday? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: He wanted to include it in part of the Comp Plan. But we would need a Public Hearing on that. He said the packets would be out next week. I don’t know how we want --. Okay, we’re solved then. Tom had talked to Will about having a workshop on the 6th and then on the hearing on the 20th ? Is the 20th before our regular meeting? That’s what I mean, prior to our regular meeting? The other question I’ve got, maybe Will could answer this or somebody. This is the first time they’ve done a plan for Parks isn’t it? The only thing they’ve had before is what was included in on the Comp Plan? What is the intention of this one? Is it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 2 supposed to be a stand-alone or is it supposed to be incorporated into the Comp Plan? Is that right, Mr. Clark, Hawkins-Clark? Hawkins-Clark: My (inaudible). Borup: I can hear you but it doesn’t sound like the mic is open. Hawkins-Clark: There it goes. Right there? My understanding is that it's a stand- alone. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Obviously there are several elements of the Park’s plan that would be impacting on your decisions as a body i.e. the width of the pathways. They’ve got, I think, 3 different classifications – Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: -- of pathways and things like that. It essentially, as my understanding, it's intended to stand – Borup: So, that’s not going to directly effect the Comprehensive Plan amendments we’re working on then? Hawkins-Clark: The only things I can think of --. We do have a Parks and Recreation chapter in our Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: That we may want to correlate the 2 and make sure that there's no conflicting things. At least the Planning and Zoning Department, we obviously see them as being responsible for the Parks and Rec issue so we would defer to their plan and their commission. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Would it be applicable for the Parks and Recreation Commission to hold a Public Hearing, make notes and Recommendations, and pass them on to us? They could hold a Public Hearing. Hawkins-Clark: I don’t know. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 3 Centers: They couldn’t? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: But, they haven't had a Public Hearing though. Centers: So, it has to be with us? Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman. The Parks Commission can have a Public Hearing, couldn’t they? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: Oh, they have had Public Hearings as well? So, this would be essentially a courtesy because of the things that interact with the Comprehensive Plan and folding that in? Centers: Then why don’t they give us their recommendations and notes? Borup: That’s what's coming next week. Centers: Okay. I thought you meant tonight. Nary: But, is there a concern that they’ve had adequate Public Hearing? Has there been any concern that we’re folding it into the Comp Plan without having a Public Hearing as to whether or not someone thinks those park plans have something to do with the Comp Plan? Borup: Brad just mentioned – Nary: They probably don’t. Borup: -- they’re both stand-alone Comp Plans. So, they’re not --. So, the only thing to concern about is if there's any conflicting language between the section in ours that mentions Parks and their other. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I’m relatively confident. I’ve looked at the initial draft but I haven't reviewed theirs in detail – Borup: That’s something that staff can work out before it goes to City Council anyway, isn’t it? Hawkins-Clark: We could. I didn’t talk with Tom. My guess is maybe he was just giving this body an opportunity to – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 4 Borup: No, he wanted us to hold a hearing. Hawkins-Clark: To actually hold it? Okay. Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Well, you know more than I do. Borup: He wanted me to set it up. I said, no contact the clerk’s office. Nary: It would appear to me that maybe the most appropriate way for our body to handle that is simply to make reference in the document as sort of inclusive of the other Comp Plan. Then when it goes to the City Council, they can hear it all, if they want to. Whether they want to fold it in or incorporate it or something like that. That would make sense to me. What do you think, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: I agree. I think a reference to their plan, I think is a great idea. Nary: If we have suggestions like what Chairman Borup is saying, something that conflicts or something that seems to be inconsistent between them we can make note of that and make that Recommendation as well. Borup: Okay. I think we’re in agreement. We’ll do the hearing, --. It sounds like it's preferable to have a workshop. That’s 2 more extra meetings for us. No, it isn’t. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Unless there's something real controversial, the whole thing should be able to handle in one evening, if they can do an explanation. Then we’ll go into it and hopefully get it done in an hour. Is that the consensus? Nary: Okay. Borup: We would rather have it as a Public Hearing on the 6th then. Do I need to call Tom? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: That’s what I asked earlier, when the deadline was. Berg: You said the 20th . Borup: He told me the 6th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 5 Berg: He wanted the 6th until he found out he couldn’t meet the deadline to do notices. Borup: I thought the deadline would have been today. Nary: It sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, that we could do it as you suggested where they can give us their input. They can tell us where they may be some concerns. We can evaluate that. We can put the notice for the 20th if there are people that want to provide some input to it, only on that particular issue. Borup: Okay. Looks like that’s what we’re – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: So, it looks like we’ll probably be on the 20th then. Okay. How about back to the other Comp Plan? I think we’ve covered the heavy issues. Those were only a small part of the whole amendments. Do we have some others that we need to address? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Is this on? Steve Siddoway asked us to review the outstanding draft plan policy issues dated September 25th before this meeting. I’ve reviewed that and we’ve handled most of everything. Maybe Brad could update us on things that they would like to see updated or changed? Brad, we’ve handled the neighborhood centers, the USPA, the land use. Is there anything else that you think that we really need to pay attention on from this memo? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton, Members of the Commission. I guess I would say --. I’m assuming that Steve said at the last meeting that essentially we wanted to hit a laundry list of everything that was outstanding from all written and verbal testimony. There certainly are some key issues outside of those 3. particularly on the page 1 of that September 25th memo, those 5 items which I think maybe in some respects have been taken care of. Certainly No. 5 has. No. 3 regarding the hookup to City owned water was one of the outstanding issues. That was brought up at the last meeting where BCA did give to you a memo that wasn’t new information but it did hit their concerns about what has not been addressed yet. That would be No. 3 there. I think that’s sort of just 2 wings of the same bird, that idea of City owned services and developing in the impact area. It's really not taken care of by just removing the Urban Service Planning Area boundary because it does still leave open this whole question about whether you want the existing policy to change. Essentially that’s what it is because the existing policy is essentially no development in Meridian’s area of impact outside the city limits without hooking up to city services. My understanding is if you are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 6 in agreement with that then there's no change because that’s how the current Comp Plan reads. But if you are in agreement with the issues BCA has brought up then that would need to be addressed. I guess that’s maybe one key one. That involves really 1, 2, and 3 on page 1. We did get a request in writing to designate an area for a sledding hill in Meridian. You might want to give that some consideration too. Borup: Do we have to supply the snow too? Hawkins-Clark: Yes and the hill. Norton: I understand snow is going to Puerto Rico from Alaska. Maybe we could ask them to drop some off. Borup: The hill would be a lot easier to provide than the snow is what I mean. Norton: I think you’re right. Hawkins-Clark: I think some of the others were if you’re just in agreement and want to Recognize those, a lot of those on page --. The Transportation Air Quality stuff, you know it comes from COMPASS. Some of that in their memo. We felt that it was good input from Charles Trainer and Ollie Bonoctar over there. If you just want to basically incorporate their memos or incorporate them as part of this September 25th . However you want to handle that. They were outstanding and haven't necessarily gotten any of your feedback yet. Borup: Which items were those? Hawkins-Clark: I was referring specifically to the Transportation Air Quality section on top of 3. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Those were the items from COMPASS. If you do choose to make a final motion tonight, there is that No.6 on the last page referring to our June 1st memorandum that had just a lot of textual and grammatical and outline type of issues that we just wanted to be sure to get in there. Maybe the best route would be, if you’re uncomfortable with any of the Recommendations or changes that are in here, you could just hit those, rather than saying the ones that you are comfortable with. Maybe that might be easier, I don’t know. Centers: Brad, some of these you didn’t make Recommendations. I think item for item, we need to go through it. Don’t we? That’s what it looks to me like. Norton: It looks like it's just notes that were brought up at the Public Hearings. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 7 Centers: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Certainly, they are issues that the public has brought up that we would not just put into the plan that goes onto the City Council without you having some kind of input on. Centers: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Some of them really could have some impact. If that’s your pleasure, I’m certainly willing to do that. Centers: What do you think Bill? Nary: What I was going to say is, just looking at the first page. No. 3 and 4, and I agree both in your memo and the memo that we Received from the Building Contractor’s Association, certainly focus on that as something pretty significant. It has been a significant issue. I guess I’ll throw my 2 cents in at this point. I’ve never been an advocate of fractionalizing sewer and water service. When asked, I’ve never said that was a great idea in my book. On the other hand, I’ve also been concerned that the City Council in the past has used that rule to restrict any development. It essentially says we can’t come to the table unless you’re going to hook up to the water system and the sewer. We’re not even going to talk to you any longer unless you’re going to do it period. There is no negotiation. There is no discussion of alternatives. There's no nothing. I guess I have a problem with that. I think there should always be the ability to discuss that option. The City Council always has the discretion on annexation and allowing development and all those things. I just am a little concerned in creating, or continuing with a rule that’s been in existence that may or may not always make sense in the particular development. It may not always be the right thing to do. I guess, I’m always afraid of having a rule for the sake of a rule when we should always be willing to look at what alternatives exists. That being said, my personal feeling is that I can’t think of many situations that it's going to make sense to allow a private water company or a private sewer system to operate depending on what it is because I think service can get very problematic. It can be very problematic for the users and the costs can be quite a bit higher. There are some down sides. I guess, my preference would be is that the language be maybe not quite as restrictive. That it would say something more in the line of preference would be for developments to be attached to the sewer and water system of the City. Something more in that vein so it's clear that that’s what we want. But, it's also clear that that’s not the only option because I’ve seen that over the last 15 months where we’ve had projects that they were willing to pay for it or they were willing to move the trunk lines. They were willing to do that to get some development done or they were willing to be able to even operate their own system because it was just far enough removed that it still made sense. It still might make sense for the City to allow it. What is happened is that because we have that policy in place, we don’t even want to talk about it. I just think we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 8 should talk about it. I guess that’s my 2 cents is I prefer to see the language softened to allow at least a discussion of some options rather than just creating a system that has a rule that may or may not make sense based on the individual application. Borup: Commissioner Nary, are you talking about projects that have been annexed or are applying for annexation? Are you talking projects that may be outside the City limits in the area of impact? Nary: I guess my thought is, it wouldn’t apply to situations most of the time that are in the City to this point because they’re already (inaudible). Borup: Right. Nary: It would only (inaudible) predominantly in the area of impact. I guess there could be things within the City limits where you have septic systems. Is that what you’re talking about? Borup: No. I’m thinking of a project that wants --. A subdivision that wanted to go in without annexation. Are you including those in there then? Nary: Okay. So, you’re talking about something say, in the area of impact that would simply only be coming to the City (inaudible)? Borup: A medium density subdivision that would, say, would not be contiguous to the City. So, they couldn’t have annexation. But they would like to go ahead. So, do we allow them to run City sewer? Nary: Right now the policy says they have to. Doesn’t it say that if they want to be annexed they’re going to have to? Borup: Right. Nary: All I’m saying is – Borup: What if they can’t be annexed? Nary: What do we do now? Borup: We don’t annex them. Nary: Right. I don’t think that would change. I guess all I’m saying is if we’re talking about a policy decision, then a policy decision that just says here's the rule and there is no other discussion beyond this rule. My personal feeling is that the rule sometimes may or may not fit the situation. If we have a policy that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 9 prohibits us even talking about it, then I don’t think we’re being very responsive to the needs of the community. Borup: I’m trying to think if the City has ever had a situation that that would apply to. Nary: We probably haven't because we have a rule that says we’re not going to do it. They probably don’t come forward. The circumstances that I could see that situation occurring is where things are on the far edge of the impact area. It's not practical or reasonable and not likely that we’re going to be able to get those types of services there within the next year or 2. That it might be 5, 7 years out to get to that. They would like to operate a system independently of the City system and be able to go in now. Again, I don’t know that it would matter much. Borup: That’s not a lot different than what Boise was doing 20 years ago. You put in septic tanks and the developments put in dry line sewers out in the streets. Then when the sewer came out there, the connection was made. Centers: If they’re not contiguous, we’re not going to annex them anyway. Borup: Right. We’ve had some that were contiguous, City Council --. The developer was willing to put in sewer lines. The answer was no. Nary: Like I said, I guess I just look at it and one of the issues that we’re being asked to look at is this policy choice. Like I said, and I’ve said more than once, not just here. I’m not really in favor of these types of things in general. I am in favor of talking about those options. It appears to me that the policy has become the end of the discussion. I think in our Comprehensive Plan it would make some sense to use language that is a little bit more Receptive to alternative proposals. Language like preference and things like that. Borup: I think that makes sense. Nary: It makes it clear in the plan that that’s what we want but it isn’t the end of it. At least that's what my perception has been is that times have come where we have simply looked at that rule that says if you’re bringing us something that’s an alternatives – Borup: You’re still saying on projects that would annex in the City? Nary: Sure. (inaudible) if you’re not going to hook up, we’re not going to look at you. Borup: Water normally hasn’t been a problem? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 10 Nary: I think they should at least have the ability to present it. We don’t have to accept it. We don’t have to agree with it. I just think that we need to be at least a little more open about evaluating those situations because there may be ones that it makes sense. It may be ones that make sense for a limited time. They may make sense for that particular project until we’re there with our services. I don’t know. I just really hate such hard and fast language in a Comprehensive Plan when what we’re suppose to be doing is talking about big picture things and how things would look and what our preference is and what we would like to see happen. Then we’ll talk about other things as well. I just have a real concern with the changing market place that we have out there in being so inflexible with something like that. Whatever that’s worth. Borup: Any other comments on that? Centers: You can’t argue with that. I mean, if we want to listen them or the City wanted to listen to them. I agree with that. I mean, how can you argue with that? That would include No. 4 too Bill. Nary: That’s what I said, 3 and 4. Centers: You just strike out 4 really. Borup: Lets take a look at a specific --. Do we want to take a look at the paragraph that had that language? I don’t think the notes referenced it, did they? Norton: No. Borup: Does anybody know where that is then? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: Wouldn’t that be good to look and see what the language was before we try to change it? Nary: That’s always an option. Borup: Do you know where that is Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. If you have our June 1st supplement, -- Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Do you have that? Borup: Yes. The table’s just not big enough. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 11 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. There's an attachment B which is sort of the laundry list going page by page, down each one. Borup: Yes, here we go. What page number? Do you know? Hawkins-Clark: It's discussed I believe in --. I’m trying to think. On page 7. Shreeve: What was the date again? Hawkins-Clark: June 1, 2001. It's the – Borup: Is that this cover sheet? Hawkins-Clark: It's the supplement --. Yes, that’s a part of that supplement. Our memo is actually just before that in the larger supplement. You had the main bound document. Then you had a larger supplement that had the attachments to that. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Anderson: They weren't stapled together. Mine is all over the place. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: Comprehensive Plan update? Hawkins-Clark: Yes sir. That’s the one. Yes. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Centers: That’s the one I had some highlights on. Hawkins-Clark: There are a couple of attachments in that. It's page, at the top of page 7 of attachment B if you look at the footers. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Hawkins-Clark: We’ve cross-referenced the plan, the bound plan here. Borup: That’s referring back to 84, right? Hawkins-Clark: CorRect. Borup: Okay. Which paragraph are we looking at? Hawkins-Clark: On page 84? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 12 Borup: No, on page 7. Hawkins-Clark: On page 7, the very first paragraph. It references page 84. Norton: Okay, add to the end – Hawkins-Clark: In actuality that particular reference is going to go away all together because you have now eliminated the Urban Service Planning Area on the map. That’s your Recommendation so in fact, the associated text will likely be gone too. Other than the fact that there is still an Urban Service Planning Area. It's just not reduced. It's equivalent to the impact area. Norton: So, essentially we need some kind of information put into the Comp Plan saying --. Borup: I thought we wanted to talk about the language on requiring the City owned – Norton: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Right, but if you look at where that references. It references in the text --. It references a paragraph – Nary: Mr. Chairman. It references a paragraph that we’ve recommended to be eliminated in its entirety. Borup: Okay. Nary: I think what was brought up in these memos was that it's still not clear if that’s – Norton: We need to add some language -- Nary: We need to add some language that says do we need to do that? Norton: Lets diRect staff to do that. Nary: It would appear to me --. I guess what I would suggest is that since the Urban Service Planning Area is eliminated, --. In our Recommendation it's eliminated in the context that it was brought up in this draft, but it still exists on the map. Hawkins-Clark: CorRect. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 13 Nary: There needs to be a reference to what it is. In that reference it can indicate that the City of Meridian has a preference that development be attached to the City water and sewer services but may consider other options as proposed. May consider other options as applications warrant. I think there was some language I saw in, I think on this page 7, attachment B that says the City fully Recognizes the often unpredictable dynamics of the market place. The need may arise which demand an expansion to this growth area. That same reasoning is the reason that I’m saying we need to at least be open to those proposals that may have some alternative that’s attractive to the City. In defining the urban services, what it is, and it's on the boundaries of the impact area. We may also want to at least reference that although our preference is that a development be attached to the City water and sewer, it's not a prohibition and that we would certainly consider because of the unpredictable dynamics of the market place. The same language that’s used here about the third paragraph of that section on page 7. Do you see where I’m at Brad? Hawkins-Clark: I do. Nary: Because that’s all I’m saying is you never know. We certainly don’t want to say we’re never going to talk to you about it otherwise. We’ve already got that language. That might be the best way to insert it because we’ll have to define the USPA in some concept. It's just not the concept that was originally proposed. What do you think? Norton: I think that makes a lot of sense and that covers the first page of this memo. Because you can’t really go back to any of these other Comprehensive Plan updates because we just nixed a lot of stuff last time we met. There's not a lot of consistency because it's either you or Steve. I’m assuming that you and Steve get together and come up with the ideas, the motions. What I would like to see tonight as kind of give you some free rein, put together the motions that we put together. Update this whole thing and come back to us and let us look at it real quick and send it on to City Council. Borup: That’s what I was just going to ask. I kind of thought that’s --. I can’t remember if we discussed that very much but, we’d like to see everything down - -. Hawkins-Clark: That you have made to date? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: I guess my point earlier was that there are still several things in this – Norton: We’re still discussing those. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 14 Borup: We’d still like to get through those tonight. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: But, we’re running --. We’ve got 25 minutes. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Borup: What would be the best? Do you want to hit on those that you think would pertinent? Well, you already have, the list that you went through. Norton: We already – Borup: That’s what we’re doing. We’re going back through and trying to – Norton: All of page 1. Centers: Mr. Chairman, Brad. I guess what Commissioner Nary said was that we just don’t want that sentence included on page 84, which I looked up. We don’t need any other language in my opinion. Did you read it? Norton: It's totally out because we – Centers: The proposal was to add the sentence in connection to City owned. We just don’t want it. I think that’s our consensus. Nary: I think what we had talked about though is that with our Recommendation that that Urban Service Planning Area not be used as that restriction inside the area of impact. We’re still going to need to have some definition of what it is. It's still on the map. Centers: Right. Nary: It's still in the guideline but it's --. We still have to define what it is. Just simply use that as the opportunity to say we may have a preference to one but we’re certainly not restricted to – Borup: Do you mean on the City services or the USPA boundary? Nary: City services. Well, USPA boundary is just the area of impact boundary. Borup: Right, that’s what it's been in the past. I’d like to make that fairly strong. I think we need to say that normal and the procedure is that the services would be available, whatever language needs to say that. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 15 Borup: But something that would not exclude another alternative. Shreeve: I agree with that. I would Recommend that somewhere in there as well, we put that we will entertain other possibilities. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: Excuse me. However, with the intent that at some point in time they become City services. Borup: Oh, definitely. Shreeve: That they are transferred over the water rights, the sewer lines, -- Borup: It would have to be designed and planned for that. Shreeve: -- pump stations --. Absolutely because I think ultimately I think that that would be in the City’s best interest to have that. Borup: Definitely. Like I say that’s the way Boise did it in west Boise. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Shreeve: That way the developer knows up front that at some point in time, it may revert back to the City. Borup: No, not may. It will. I think it needs to be real strong. Shreeve: Right. Exactly. Borup: I can’t think of a situation where it would even happen. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. There are 3 current applications of fairly sizable magnitude that are before the City Council or have been in the Recent past. Westborough Subdivision on the corner of Locust Grove and Chinden. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: 40 acres. These have been before Ada County Commissioners and have come through the City Council. Powder River Subdivision. Lee Centers, on the south side of Victory, Meridian Road. West side on Meridian Road that’s 140 plus acres. Certainly Keltic Heights. These are large Ada County applications within our area of impact are proposing private wastewater systems and some of them United Water. Some of them maybe pull our water down. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 16 some of them wells. The bottom line is do you want urban development in the area of impact? I think that’s what we need to hear from you. What I just heard – Borup: The 3 that you mentioned, Keltic Heights and I guess even the others in that North Meridian Planning Area which is kind of a separate thing. Hawkins-Clark: Powder River is on the south side. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: In a way, they’re – Borup: That’s what I mean. That’s off by itself. Nary: I guess, Mr. Chairman what I would say is that’s even more of a good example of why we need to at least consider those types of things because --. I wasn’t here for the 2 of those but I think I was for Keltic Heights because it sounds familiar. Borup: That was the shoestring annexation. Nary: Oh, is that what that was? I think we need to consider those things because we are basically, one Ada County Commissioner vote away from them approving those types of development and we have no control over the outcome on it. I would much rather entertain that, maybe with that type of restriction that over a time period so that they can amortize their cost. Over a time period. That way they can build it now. We have control over the outcome, what it looks like, what the development’s going to be. The City of Meridian has that control and allows that. At some juncture we’re going to take over that water and sewer system so that if we can’t provide it, we have an avenue to allow it rather than at some point the Ada County Commissioners may say, we’re going to approve those things and we have no control over what it is. Borup: I have the exact same concern. Nary: I would rather at least come to the table and talk about it instead of pointing at a rule that may not work and hope and pray we always have 2 Ada County Commissioners that agree with us. I guess I wouldn’t say it's allows urban development, but it allows the City to maintain control of development in it's impact area. I would be afraid to loose that. So, I wouldn’t want to use this rule to prohibit any discussion and then we lose the control over our impact area because we’re not allowing it and the county does. Borup: Has there been any staff discussion on that very thing? That’s the same concern I have, to get it out of our control. Has staff always felt that the county will go along with us and deny them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 17 Centers: It's worked so far. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. There has been some. For the most part I think staff is of the opinion that, that we need to annex if we’re going to provide those services. Not to allow them to --. I mean, you’ve got tremendous costs also involved in the change over from a --. What do they call those? Borup: The community systems? Hawkins-Clark: Package plant systems to the City sewer. Again, we’re not just talking about water and sewer. We are talking about fire and police, and all services. They have concerns right now about the existing City limits and these fringe areas. You are talking about quite an impact on them as well because of the greater distances. Shreeve: Not to put words in Bruce’s mouth but I know the engineering department has been against these outside services. Maybe refresh our memory, Bruce, just summarize what the engineering department’s thoughts are on that. FReckleton: Commissioner Shreeve, I’ll take a stab at it. Brad Watson has been the point man in our department for that. The cost is a big thing. These package systems, we have not seen that they have proven out very well. Borup: But, it wouldn’t be anticipated that the City would take over that, would it? FReckleton: No. Borup: When the services come? Shreeve: That would just simply be abandoned as far as the treatment the package treatment would just be abandoned or whatever. You just get the raw affluent? FReckleton: CorRect. Shreeve: The cost would be at the homeowners to abandon that and make whatever --. I guess because I can see the engineering department’s point but yet I can also see the need to help control to negotiate. If the homeowner’s association from the very beginning says hey, there could potentially be a cost for you to do whatever it takes to get it to the City, both have won. The homeowner’s go in knowing that there's going to be cost. Nary: Again, I wasn’t inviting Brad to call me because I understand the City’s perspective of it. I just want the discussion. That’s all. I mean, it may not work. It may not be practical. That’s okay. The City still has the control over what they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 18 choose to annex. My preference, and I think everybody on this Commission has heard more than once that we annex it. Because I think we need to control our growth. The way we control it is by having that control over that property. How we do that is by annexing. If this is another method to give the City Council the impudence to say we should just annex this property and move forward and have them hook up to the City sewer as a part of it. Then that’s fine too . I just want the discussion because there may be circumstances that it may work. Like I said, that language in the memo is exactly what I think, market place bears that out. It may make sense. It may not. That’s okay. We just need to have that flexibility to be able to do that. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Wouldn’t there be times Bruce, when their water system would be welcome? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: If they had a well up to City standards? Centers: Yes. FReckleton: Yes, if their wells were built to City municipal standards and that sort of thing. Yes. Centers: Right. I think that’s what Commissioner Nary is saying then. We could have that option, that they wouldn’t have to hook up to our City water because they had their system. Borup: That would be one of the requirements – Centers: Right. Borup: -- that it would meet City specifications. Centers: So, I think talking about it is the way to go and not make it black and white, either or. Borup: So, who’s going to draft that wording? Centers: I think Brad knows where we’re coming from. Then you’re going to do some – Hawkins-Clark: Yes, on that item, Commissioners I will essentially take that Urban Service Planning Area paragraph on page 84 and tweak it and bring across to you the idea that annexations are still required for ultimate services that you want to leave open the alternative, that’s in the City’s best interest. Don’t exclude other alternatives if it's in the City’s best interest. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 19 Centers: Excuse me, Brad. The other items, when you address them if you could refer to the page and paragraph -- Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Centers: -- of the Comp Plan. Then we can just I think one more meeting we’ll be done won’t we? Borup: I hope so. Centers: Right. Hawkins-Clark: If I could, just one more on that, Chairman. Borup: Yes, that's what I was going to ask. Another item or on the same thing? Hawkins-Clark: Kind of along the same lines. I know that there's just tons of paper flying at you on this whole process. There was an August 30 memo that Steve Siddoway and I did about just the Urban Service Planning Area. On the very last page, we threw out that the idea of this separate zoning ordinance amendment that would essentially look at the adequacy test when new applications come in. So, lets say, when the annexation applications come in, we have an adequacy test that we would run through that would guide each service. If you want me to --. Maybe I could just include some of that in our final motion memo next time, if you’re comfortable with that rather than talking about it tonight. Do you want me to do that? Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner ? Nary: No, I think that makes sense to me. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: Did we cover pretty much most of --? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: On page 2 regarding the land use, I’ve been looking at 7, 8, 9, and 10 where it all refers to chapter 7D, various sections. I’ll be glad to research that and report back but as I looked at them, they don’t have really much effect at all. Some of these comments don’t --. I know these are comments of people at the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 20 Public Hearing but they don’t refer to what the intent was. For instance, No. 8 where it talks about perimeter fencing, creates an artificial boundary. They are talking about actually in the Comp Plan, it's for the developers to keep the construction debris away from the neighborhood. Some of these – Borup: I think the Planning and Zoning department has required that as a permanent also. Norton: Great, so we don’t have to worry about these because it makes sense to have a permanent fencing for the construction (inaudible). Borup: I see what you’re saying. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: Some of these aren’t pertinent anyway. I mean, they’re comments that people have made but they have misinterpreted maybe what the Comp Plan was. As for the Transportation Air Quality COMPASS, I think that’s something that either we want to discuss today or later. There is an issue of some extra glossary terms that should be defined. I think we should define extra glossary terms. Mark Estes letter dated August 20th , on page 9 has a list of those terms that should be added to the glossary. Other than that, I don’t see any other problems of doing some kind of a quick motion tonight. Borup: Were there any other --? When we started this, we talked about a lot of these things were from the BCA letter. Did we cover the points on that? Norton: Which date? Borup: That’s where I’m – Hawkins-Clark: That was not dated Chairman, Commissioner, If you’re referring to the one that was handed out at the last meeting. Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: The November 1 meeting. That was just a blank, no letterhead, corRect? Norton: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it was no letterhead. I think the bullet points with bold (inaudible). I’d be happy to go down and hit ours. We did talk about this as a staff, if you want – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 21 Borup: That’s what I was wondering. Would that be faster? We do have Mr. Eaton here that we could call up for a couple minutes if the Commission would --. Which would be more efficient? Hawkins-Clark: I believe it's, the Public Hearing, -- Borup: We can call for – Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: -- the public testimony part but we can call up for special --. We’ve been calling for any special testimony. Hawkins-Clark: I could just go down it. Unless there's things to add on to here. Borup: I guess, my only question would be is there items that we have not addressed. I don’t want to repeat everything. Hawkins-Clark: I believe there are Chairman. Borup: Okay. Yes, -- Eaton: Mr. Chairman, thank you. John Eaton from Building Contractor’s Association. From that list, you have talked about the mixed-use, the City owned services. We had from the (inaudible) letter that you had originally Received, I think it was fairly lengthy. There was some question there about in fill development and some incentives that should be provided maybe more clearly in that. Probably the biggest one left, the ACARD memo also had some questions about the – *** End of Side One *** Eaton: There were also some landscape questions that we had. I thought that was a little too restrictive to see that in there. I think you’ve addressed the pathways. I went back and researched that and I just couldn’t find where it came from. I apologize for that. I don’t know if Brad found that or not. I couldn’t find it. The Parks plan, you said you were going to have an additional hearing. The glossary, Commissioner Norton addressed. Those were the extent of our concerns and those were issues that we had raised previously. They’re not any new issues. Centers: So, it's primarily 2? The in fill with incentives and the cul de sacs not allowed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 22 Eaton: Yes. I think those are probably the 2 biggest. There were some concerns on the landscape requirements but that’s a pretty lengthy thing and you guys have had that discussion in the past I believe. You may want to stand on that. Borup: Okay. Thank you John. Centers: Thanks. Borup: Anything to add to that Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman. I would just, the North Meridian Planning Area, there has been a couple of requests that as you know this 12 mile study area that’s going on to just leave the Comprehensive Plan, 1993 Comp Plan as it currently has the land designations and not include any of the proposed Comp Plan until they get done with this process that’s going on. Our feeling is, that’s certainly going to be coming down the pike. You as a body will Receive Recommendation from that committee that’s reviewing that 12 north mile area. Our feeling is that if we do Receive development applications, in the mean time, after this is adopted by the City that we would like to see a current draft in place, rather than the 1993 one in place. Borup: As long as we’re not restricting the amending process to 12 months, go back to 6 months like we are now, I mean those are such all encompassing area. We’ve got an opportunity to amend the Comp Plan again. Isn’t that where you’re going? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: You’re saying just go ahead and do an amendment to incorporate whatever that study comes up with? That makes the most sense to me. Nary: Right. Mr. Chairman, if for some reason that something happens quicker, I mean, it still has to go through the hearing process at the City Council level anyway. They may catch up, but it would make more sense to move along with what we think the new things are and substitute later. Borup: I don’t think they’re going to have anything that 6 months to do the amendment is going to cause a problem on because the sewer is not there. Okay. Nary: Maybe it doesn’t have to be if the other --. Borup: Are we ready to --? Centers: Did you want to address those 2 items that Mr. Eaton talked about? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 23 Borup: I think so, yes. You mean and have that included in on the comments? Centers: I guess what he’s speaking of is the in fill development to provide incentives to the developers. I would be in total agreement. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, if I could, there's --. Yes. We have in the new Planned Development Ordinance that was adopted in March of this year. We do have incentives in that ordinance. Certainly we totally support the idea of incentives. Centers: Yes. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: For in fills, there's not a question there. I’m just pointing out that they are currently in the Planned Development Ordinance. The only thing is that if you’re not doing a Planned Development as an in fill then those incentives aren’t there. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: If you just have that little 5 acre piece that you want to do a single use only you’re not doing a Planned Development then you don’t get the benefit of the incentives under the current Planned Development Ordinance. Centers: Right. Hawkins-Clark: If you want to, we could certainly tack some of this language into the plan. I can do that for your next meeting. Borup: Good. Centers: The cul de sacs, I guess the way I would like to see it is if the fire department could show specifically why a cul de sac should not be allowed in a subdivision, something along those lines. I don’t know how the rest of the Commission feels about it. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Go ahead. Shreeve: I would like to comment on the cul de sac issue. Again, just to throw a little personal flavor in, but we personally look for cul de sacs. We have little kids. I think to go with the idea of totally abolishing them, which it does not say that but I think to more or less, for lack of a better way of putting them. To abolish them is not good. To limit them, I don’t believe is necessarily good. I’m not a proponent of having one street with a bunch of branches heading off that are nothing but cul de sacs because there certainly needs to be some connectivity Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 24 but I think there is some wisdom. I think there is some application and not just because of existing land use patterns. There's times when cul de sacs are just good sensible community neighborhood places that families with little kids like to go to where they’re safe. For example, we live on a cul de sac that has a pathway connecting at the end of our cul de sac to a neighboring street. So, there's still that connectivity for walkability but it's no traffic in relationship to cars. I think we need to tone down the language and allow cul de sacs reasonably. Like, I say, I’m certainly not a proponent of a thoroughfare with branch cul de sacs. I think they should not be as discouraged as I believe the language says. Nary: I guess, to add to that, I would concur. I think that there's a need for all different types of uses. You can get the same connectivity. Maybe that needs to be clarified that the connectivity can be done through alternative methods like pathways. Those are things that we do currently. There's a good use for those as well. I guess I concur with Commissioner Shreeve that it would make some sense just to make sure the language is clear that we’re still looking at all varieties of land uses and allowing a variety of land uses. Again, we have that preference for connectivity but connectivity can be achieved through other means than just a road. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. If I could just clarify. The reference is strictly applying to the neighborhood centers. That little quarter of a mile. Borup: That’s what I was just wondering. Hawkins-Clark: Just that little quarter of a mile area of the neighborhood centers. That’s the only place that it refers to no cul de sacs. That’s the only thing we’re talking about. We’re just saying no cul de sacs within those centers. If you are comfortable with that, then we don’t – Borup: That doesn’t need to be addressed then. Hawkins-Clark: We don’t feel there's a problem. We did talk about that with the BCA. We’re happy to clean up that language because I can see where it was a little unclear in our text. We can clean that up to say you know certainly cul de sacs will be reviewed just not within that neighborhood center quarter mile area. Borup: I think that’s what the letter said. It just said it was unclear as to whether it applied to all or not. I think that clarifies that. Okay. I don’t think we’re looking at adjourning this to the end of our other meeting. the 29th would be our next regular scheduled – Nary: No, we don’t have one. It's only the second and fourth remember? We only work so much for free. Borup: What am I saying? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 25 (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: So, the 6th of December. Borup: Oh, the 6th of December, right. Is that what --? Yes, the 29th was an open Thursday. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: We’ve had several motions that we’ve made over the last 2 times we have addressed this issue plus tonight’s comments. Can staff put together a draft of what we have been Recommending for that meeting so we can review it? Hawkins-Clark: You bet. Borup: Okay. So, we’re looking for the 6th ? Norton: For the 6th , yes. Including the glossary and your No. 6, referencing your memo of January 1st , which now we’ve totally blown apart with the various motions we’ve been making. If you can kind of gather everything together that would help us to maybe get this off our agenda and onto City Council. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton. Just a single memo that summarizes all the motions to date regarding the Comprehensive Plan. What about the map, do you need any update on that? Are you comfortable with the fact that – Borup: Didn’t we just make the 3? Hawkins-Clark: -- your changes last time – Norton: Yes, there weren’t very many changes to that map. Borup: We did 3 changes to the map. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Norton: I think we’re pretty clear on that map. Hawkins-Clark: So, we’re just talking about the text policies and motions only? Norton: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Pull everything to date together into a single --? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 26 Norton: Yes, that would be great. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: You may want to have those maps changed before it goes to City Council. I don’t know. Norton: Because we had that frontage area too that we – Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Along I-84, right. Borup: That’s not a real hard thing to do is it? Hawkins-Clark: No, we can do that and probably for the Public Hearing notice it would be clearest if we had a final map. Borup: Okay. We didn’t have a motion yet did we? Norton: Not yet. Borup: Also, in line with that is the 20th was the Park Comprehensive Plan meeting? From what I gather we would rather not have a workshop. Just have them all at the same meeting. then that would be at 6:00 prior to the other meeting also? Centers: On what date? Borup: The 20th of December. Nary: Right now we don’t have very much scheduled on that I don’t think. Borup: No. (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: I’m still talking about holding it at 6:00 prior to the other meeting. Nary: Right. But, I mean, if it were to take longer. Borup: Oh, right. Nary: We’d have this room full of people to talk about the Parks we might need a little bit more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 27 Borup: Right. We’ll have to play that by ear. Okay, do we have a motion? Nary: Motion to adjourn this meeting? Borup: Yes. Nary: To adjourn the special meeting and – Borup: To a date? Nary: To December 6th , 6:00 for further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK